Notifications
Clear all

Choosing between basic liability and full coverage for your first car—what did you go with?

103 Posts
100 Users
0 Reactions
1,119 Views
Posts: 17
(@diver71)
Active Member
Joined:

The premiums for full coverage were almost half the value of my old sedan every year, and honestly, I figured I could handle the loss if something happened.

Makes sense for an older daily driver. I went liability-only on my first car too—a ‘91 Accord that wasn’t worth much to begin with. Full coverage just didn’t add up financially. That said, I usually recommend at least considering comprehensive if you’re worried about stuff like theft or hail, especially if your area’s prone to it. For rare or classic cars, though, full coverage is a no-brainer—replacement parts can get pricey fast. For most beaters? Liability does the job.


Reply
Posts: 8
(@poetry_matthew4675)
Active Member
Joined:

I remember when I bought my first “nice” car—a used 5-series BMW. The insurance agent nearly choked when I asked about liability-only. Turns out, even minor repairs on those cost a fortune, so full coverage was basically mandatory. Totally different ballgame from my old Civic, where I just rolled the dice and hoped for the best. For anything with a badge or rare parts, I’d never risk it. For a beater, though? I get why people skip it.


Reply
jleaf59
Posts: 19
(@jleaf59)
Active Member
Joined:

Honestly, I get where you're coming from—those German cars can be a real money pit if anything goes sideways. I learned the hard way with an old Audi A4 I picked up in my twenties. Looked great, drove even better... until a parking lot fender bender meant a $1,700 headlight replacement. Full coverage saved me there, no question.

But yeah, with my first car (beat-up Corolla), I ran liability-only for years. It just didn’t make sense to pay more in premiums than the car was even worth. If it got totaled, I'd just move on. It’s a different calculation once you’ve got something with expensive parts or sentimental value.

You nailed it—depends on the car and your risk tolerance. Some folks are comfortable rolling the dice, others want peace of mind. Nothing wrong with either approach, just gotta know what you’re getting into.


Reply
Posts: 5
(@nateguitarist2472)
Active Member
Joined:

Honestly, I went liability-only on my first car too—a ‘98 Civic that was worth about as much as a nice dinner out. No way was I paying extra for full coverage when a fender bender would’ve just meant moving on. Now that I’ve got a minivan with all the bells and whistles (and kids who treat it like a jungle gym), I don’t mess around—full coverage all the way. If you’re driving something you can’t afford to replace, or if repairs cost more than your monthly mortgage, just bite the bullet and get the coverage. Otherwise, save your cash for coffee or diapers... trust me, you’ll need it.


Reply
Posts: 19
(@psychology911)
Eminent Member
Joined:

I hear you on the Civic—my first car was a ‘99 Corolla with mysterious stains and a radio that only played static. Liability was the only thing that made sense. Now, with a newer ride and a backseat full of cracker crumbs, I’m not taking chances. Funny how priorities shift once you’re hauling more than just yourself around.


Reply
Page 7 / 21
Share:
Scroll to Top